science criteria, and toward the end
of the book Stadler graciously but
firmly leads the reader to evaluate
‘grand evolution’.

Evaluating experiments
on evolution

He considers Lenski’s ongoing
study of ‘evolution’ in E. coli. How
does it stack up on the six criteria?
It basically asks the question: “How
much evolutionary change can occur
in E. coli under a restricted diet in
lab conditions?” The 30-year exercise
remains extremely repeatable. It uses
very direct measurements, even to
the level of analyzing time-stamped,
freeze-dried bacterial genomes from
generations long past. Its prospective
analysis designed the experiment in
advance and controls all the pertinent
variables along the way. I’ll let the
reader discover how the remaining
criteria apply.

Meanwhile, the author clearly
shows that ‘microevolution’ occurred
in these bacteria, but that it took
33,000 generations and about 10
trillion individual bacteria in order to
merely duplicate one gene and damage
another. That’s how the bacteria grow
in their particular restricted diet.
1 At
the end of the book, Stadler brings
this and several other examples back
around to show that the very science
that demonstrates microevolution
refutes macroevolution.

However, the book directly tackles
the main pillars of macroevolution,
too, including vestigial organs,
homology, biogeography, and fossils.
Each one topples under the weight of
its abject failure to meet any of the six
criteria of high-confidence science.
Perhaps to make this section more
palatable to evolutionary readers, the
author states the situation positively.
For example he describes how the
homology research question “Are
similarities between life forms a
result of macroevolution?” meets all
six criteria of low-confidence science.

Macroevolution is not repeatable.
Without directly observing the process
that produced the creature, a scientist
cannot make direct measurements.
And the only practically available
data to test this question comes
from fossils, which permit only
retrospective analyses. Same for
the remaining three criteria. The
author summarizes each key research
question in an easy-to-read, two-column table. Point-by-point,
question-by-question, each icon of
macroevolution falls into the category
of non-science.

Chimpanzees and Lucy

Stadler applies the six criteria
of high-confidence science, or the
opposite criteria of low-confidence
science as the case may be, to King
Tut, malaria, orphan genes, Lucy, and
human-chimp ancestry. These last
two seem particularly relevant for
general readers, who typically show
more interest in their own human
origins than in less familiar subjects
like biogeography. In an extreme
understatement of the total failure of
macroevolution to meet any vestige
of any of his six criteria, Stadler
writes: “All of this high-confidence
evidence speaks to microevolution, not
macroevolution” ( 118). Using language
like this, the book gently permits the
scientific criteria to violently punch
topics like human-chimp common
ancestry right in the face.

Speaking of human-chimp origins,
the book quotes evolutionary technical
literature that admits to huge DNA
differences between humans and
chimpanzees.
2 Tidy features like
this quote list reveal that the author
knows his subject and uses that
knowledge appropriately. Meanwhile,
like repeated body blows, the quiet
quotes promise to purge the air right
out of the metaphorical lungs of those
committed to the false statistic of 99%
genetic identity.

Then at just the right time, Stadler
recalls studies from his prior chapters
which demonstrated the many generations and individuals were required
to make just the handful of DNA
mutations to enable E. coli to consume citrate and malaria to resist
drugs. This high-confidence microbe
research demonstrates the folly of
calling upon mutations to explain how
a minimum of
75 million DNA bases
changed between chimp and human
over evolution’s long-held scenario
of six million years. In other words,
high-confidence experiments expose
just how incredibly non-scientific, and
therefore faith-based, are claims like
human-chimp common ancestry.

Potential for the six criteria

The final chapter calls for sweeping
cultural changes in light of the clarity
that these six criteria bring to research
questions. Public school curricula
should clearly state why science
cannot directly address chemical
evolution (‘abiogenesis’) instead of
current wording that asserts science
has demonstrated life from non-life.
Museum placards should describe how
research questions like, “Did modern
humans evolve from Lucy?” meet all
six criteria for low-confidence science
instead of current wording that leads
viewers to believe that science has
shown we all came from Lucy.

Well, more scientists and thinkers
of every origins persuasion equip
themselves to better evaluate the
scientific credibility of research
questions, but Stadler probably asks
too much. If people actually ran
on good logic, his changes would
have a better chance of taking
hold. But people run on all kinds of
motivations—not the least of which
is an intense desire to avoid God
and therefore avoid the clearly seen
evidence for creation, an inexcusable
but common crime against our Creator
(Romans 1: 18–32).